Imagine this: Fox news, Breitbart or some other mainstream right-wing website pens an article suggesting that blacks, Jews or any other racial group should be denying their franchise rights and prevented from voting. Imagine the uproar and shitstorm that would ensue. Imagine how that article would be used to brand all conservatives/ring wingers as racist bigots. Someone might even find a way to blame Donald Trump for “creating an atmosphere” for the article.
An article very similar to the one I just described went viral this week, but its okay though because this one was talking about denying white men’s right to vote. Phew. Thank God the author only wants to ban white men from voting, I was afraid it was going to be a hateful article or something.
A writer from The Huffington Post’s South Africa branch thinks that, based on white men’s tendency to vote for right wing policies, they should be banned from voting. She argues that if white men are taken out of the picture, the “progressive cause” would gain more ground and grow stronger. She doesn’t want to ban white men from voting forever though, just for 20 years, so its cool:
Some of the biggest blows to the progressive cause in the past year have often been due to the votes of white men. If white men were not allowed to vote, it is unlikely that the United Kingdom would be leaving the European Union, it is unlikely that Donald Trump would now be the President of the United States, and it is unlikely that the Democratic Alliance would now be governing four of South Africa’s biggest cities.
If white men no longer had the vote, the progressive cause would be strengthened. It would not be necessary to deny white men indefinitely – the denial of the vote to white men for 20 years (just less than a generation) would go some way to seeing a decline in the influence of reactionary and neo-liberal ideology in the world. The influence of reckless white males were one of the primary reasons that led to the Great Recession which began in 2008. This would also strike a blow against toxic white masculinity, one that is long needed.
She also thinks that denying white men the right to vote will solve “Income inequality”:
At the same time, a denial of the franchise to white men, could see a redistribution of global assets to their rightful owners. After all, white men have used the imposition of Western legal systems around the world to reinforce modern capitalism. A period of twenty years without white men in the world’s parliaments and voting booths will allow legislation to be passed which could see the world’s wealth far more equitably shared. The violence of white male wealth and income inequality will be a thing of the past.
This redistribution of the world’s wealth is long overdue, and it is not just South Africa where white males own a disproportionate amount of wealth. While in South Africa 90 percent of the country’s land is in the hands of whites (it is safe to assume these are mainly men), along with 97 percent of the Johannesburg Stock Exchange, this is also the norm in the rest of the world. Namibia has similar statistics with regard to land distribution and one can assume this holds for other assets too. As Oxfam notes eight men control as much as wealth as the poorest 50 percent of the world’s population. In the United States ten percent of the population (nearly all white) own 90 percent of all assets – it is likely that these assets are largely in the hands of males. Although statistics by race are difficult to find from other parts of the world, it is very likely that the majority of the world’s assets are in the hands of white males, despite them making up less than 10 percent of the world’s population.
I won’t torture you guys with any more of this garbage. An archived version of the post can be found HERE, for anyone who wants to keep reading.
The Huffington Post isn’t even trying to hide their racism anymore.